Let's see... 2 year service contract / 1 year hardware design cycle = 2 hardware revisions per contract period... fewer users upgrading, lower hardware revenues. Maybe, just maybe, I can wait another year until the next incremental change happens. Sorry, as much as I enjoy using Apple products, this is really poor business strategy. You're losing a whole subset of potential customers willing to drop hundreds more on a new handset every year, who are now instead going to wait every two years to get the lowest price. It doesn't take a genius to look at how Apple has milked the iPod cash cow by tweaking the product every six months or so. Tiny incremental changes, advertised as revolutionary, just to get the masses to throw away their "obsolete" device for something new. It's like disposable technology, only the per unit cost is significantly higher.
This was never really about the money. $200 every year is less than $20 a month. People pay more than three times that amount just for the phone service, and we all know AT&T is gouging us. It was never really about contracts. It is about being played. I don't believe in Apple's way of manipulating its product lifecycle to get users to buy every incremental change. They could've made the iPhone 3G S last year. The technology existed. But they held back and they're dragging it out. It reeks of consumer exploitation. And if we weren't bound to a single carrier, you can be sure that the competitive pressure would be a good thing for the consumer. Frankly, for a group of people who enjoy a product so much they're willing to pay several hundred, if not a thousand, dollars a year, an extra few hundred is not a dealbreaker. But feeling like you're being taken for a fool...well, that's the sort of thing that drives people to develop a love/hate relationship with a company like Apple.
I've never wanted the Palm Pre to succeed as bad as I do now. I want all the competitors to succeed. Nokia, RIM, Samsung, LG, even Microsoft. I want them to make a kick-ass device that will give Apple a run for its money. I'm not holding my breath, but I can hope. Come on Android, make something great already. It's only when the competition actually poses a threat to market dominance that real innovation starts to happen, and prices go down.
The thing is, the iPhone 3G isn't somehow magically rendered obsolete just because Apple made an improved version. It still does what it does. And with the new OS, it'll do even more. Such is the way technology changes. Yes, I think I'm sticking with my current phone. I waited one year to get 3G, I waited another year to get video/MMS/etc. I told myself I'd buy the new iPhone no matter what. And after the wait, and seeing the writing on the wall, I've come to the realization that I don't really care about having Apple's latest toy anymore. In fact, I really don't do much with my existing iPhone anyway. So why continue buying into this scheme? To paraphrase Mark Twain, if you're being regarded as an idiot, why play along and remove all doubt?
I've never understood this business strategy. I don't see any intrinsic reason why Microsoft should seek to enter every possible technology market and leverage its enormous financial power and resources to do so.
They know Zune is a failed business venture. As a product, the Zune is unable to compete with the iPod on any meaningful level. And Microsoft management knows this. Yet they persist, not out of some altruistic desire to encourage competition, but because the executives (read: Ballmer) have too much hubris to concede that Apple has done something remarkable. They have succeeded in revolutionizing the portable media device. And with the iPhone, Apple has created nothing less than an integrated portable computing/communications/multimedia solution that is as stylish as it is easy to use. Is it perfect? Hardly. Was it the first to use each of its component technologies? No. But it is indisputable that it broke new ground by combining all these features into a single, easy-to-use device. And the only ones who still refuse to admit this are those who are aligned with Ballmer's distorted view of reality.
I have a healthy appreciation for the competition--Google (Android), RIM (Blackberry), Palm (Pre), Nokia (N9x), and yes, even Microsoft (Zune/Windows Mobile). It's important that these guys are around to keep Apple on its toes. But let's not fool ourselves into believing that these are the good guys for fostering that competition. If they were truly good, they would have recognized the importance of innovating beyond what they see in Apple's offerings, rather than simply trying to make a comparable product. Where was their vision before Apple dominated the field? No, they were too busy being complacent. We saw tiny, incremental changes in the mobile device market for years until the iPhone blew everyone away. The same was true of the pre-iPod MP3 market. Apple lit a fire under their collective asses and now hardware manufacturers are going nuts trying to make the next "iPod/iPhone/iWhatever" killer.
The Zune will never be successful as long as it is deprived of a true vision. It isn't enough to mimic another device or its success. That's what Microsoft does not understand. They never have understood what makes a product work. The ubiquity of their bread-and-butter Windows has brought them enormous financial success and market share, but with that it has brought laziness and sloppy management. They can afford to push out half-assed products. Windows will still be there to keep the money coming in. They don't have to be hungry, visionary, or risk-taking, like Apple has had to be for decades. They've made some real blunders (G4 cube, 20th Anniversary Mac, the Lisa, Mac OS licensing, Centris/Quadra/Performa bloated product line,... I could go on but I think you get the point). But they have had enormous successes as well. Microsoft could make Zune amazing. Any company could, given that much money and talent. But that's not what they really want. They don't want to make something better than an iPhone or an iPod. They want to make something just good enough superficially, with as little attention to detail as possible, just so they can say they have some market penetration.
Microsoft has not wanted to make a better 'something' for DECADES. When a company stops caring about providing the best possible user experience, I stop caring about that company's products.
I'm a bit surprised that nobody has mentioned this rare but 100% fatal, autosomal dominant disorder. IIRC the first symptom is the sudden onset of insomnia, followed by hallucinations, dementia, catatonia, then death, typically by middle age. The progression is rapid, irreversible, and totally untreatable by modern science. Insomnia appears to be a symptom of the disease and not the direct cause of death; but it is often the loss of the ability to sleep that is most disturbing to the afflicted individuals, as it is in this early stage when their cognitive function remains largely intact.
It stands to reason that a biological process that is common to nearly all animals such as sleep is so essential that the lack of it would be a serious health issue, if not a direct contributor to death.
There's something about him that almost invariably goes unappreciated unless you have the chance to interact with him. I'm not talking about listening to him deliver a speech or lecture; nor am I talking about simply exchanging greetings.
I had the rare opportunity to participate in a dialogue with Dr. Hawking. You know, as in one of us asks a question or makes a statement, and the other one replies. A conversation, if you will. But what was immediately, almost painfully, obvious from the outset is that this was no ordinary conversation. It took the better part of an hour to exchange the equivalent amount of information that would normally take at most a few minutes of most people's time. And yes, it seems like a *duh* kind of observation, but it is not until you actually experience it that you begin to develop the appreciation for his stature and how he has coped with his lot in life.
Unlike lectures and speeches, a real-time conversation cannot be composed in advance. One of us would ask a question, and there would be no response. We would have to wait through this incredibly pregnant pause while he composed his answer, one word, one letter at a time. Once he was finished, it would then burst forth from his synthesizer in this electronically modulated artificial voice. And yes, we did ask whether he had an interest in changing that voice, given the advances in speech synthesis algorithms, to provide a more "natural" expression. He didn't see any reason to.
The greatest lesson any of us got out of that conversation that evening with Dr. Hawking, is that every moment is valuable. Choose our words, our thoughts, our actions, with purpose and efficiency. And yet, learn to develop patience for that which you have no control over. I would find it maddening to be forced to communicate at 1/20th the speed of most everyone else, and yet have full, unfettered speed of thought. It is the realization that the vast majority of people on this planet take for granted the time which passes in each moment, each day, and do not fill it to its potential, that I am reminded of when I think about my encounter with Dr. Hawking.
Make each moment count. May he have a speedy and full recovery.
Maybe that's true for other people but I personally feel that my choice of hardware is driven by my particular needs in terms of functionality, usability, and lastly, aesthetics. I would like to think that I don't buy things just because other people have them. I mean, what kind of purpose does that serve? Status is not important to me--I don't wear the trendiest clothes, or drive the fanciest car. I'm extremely price-conscious when it comes to things that are unimportant to me. But I am willing to pay for quality when that quality counts. I've been burned too often by Windows and bargain-basement PC hardware.
So I've never owned an iPod, but when the iPhone came out I did buy one, because it was clear that it was a significant innovation that combined multiple functions into a single, cohesive, well-designed device. I didn't get it because it was "cool." The thing is, advertising and PR is ubiquitous. It's not fair to say that marketing drives the purchasing decisions of the consumer when it comes to Apple products, but the same does not equally apply to Microsoft, HP, Dell, Nokia, or whatever.
People like to attribute Apple's success to their marketing, their attention to aesthetics. And I don't doubt there's some contribution. I don't doubt for a moment that a lot of people buy their products because they see their friends with these sleek, shiny devices. But in my view, that's a bit upside-down. Nobody would buy the hardware if it didn't live up to its promises.
That's a good question. I don't know if it's a viable business model, to be honest. Investors seem to be fairly confident about it, though. Time will tell. Or an internal corporate leak?
I used the term "selling data" loosely. Google doesn't sell their data or the analytics directly. Rather, they sell it indirectly, through more efficient matching of the advertiser to the prospective buyer. The ability to do this well is predicated upon the necessity of understanding the advertising preferences of the consumer, and this in turn is accomplished by analyzing the information the user sends to Google through its services. If I search for "tentacle porn" on YouTube you can bet I'm going to see ads for anything from hentai anime to takoyaki restaurants.
I should have been more specific, rather than assumed that my meaning ought to be inferred from the context.
Google's strategy is not simply about creating or acquiring ubiquitous online services regardless of profitability. A lot of comments so far have missed the forest for the trees. You want to know why Google beats its competitors in advertising? It's not just brand presence or market domination. It's the way in which they cross-analyze data collected from ALL their services in order to increase the accuracy of their advertising.
I mean, hasn't anyone noticed this yet? Your GMail, Blogger, Calendar, Picasa, and YouTube accounts are all linked. Even the original search that Google started out with provides valuable analytics that are still trade secrets. Users of these services leave a data trail that provides Google with all kinds of information about the user's preferences. That information then gets analyzed and targeted ads are served that increase the likelihood that they'll be clicked. And that's how Google gets the business. Their biggest fear is not whether a product is losing money; it is that nobody is using it and therefore there is no data to mine. All these serivces are just carrots they dangle for the end-user. Their true customers are those who pay for the data they collect from us.
One service does not have to turn a direct profit in order to increase the value of the overall business model.
The main thrust of the pro-gay crusade these days is about gaining favored status ("protected class" listings, tax benefits for "civil unions" and "gay marriage") for gays. At very least, the second half of that qualifies as promotion.
You made the above statement. I challenged you to support it. You have not. Your attempt at misdirection is transparent. Answer the question with factual evidence, or retract your statement.
You certainly have a strange concept of "favored status." Name me one right--just ONE--that gay people have, or are seeking, that straight people do not enjoy. Name me one law on the books that says gay people are entitled to some benefit that straight people are legally prohibited from having.
You think that gay marriage is somehow more favorable to gays than straight marriage? That just demonstrates your bias and ignorance.
"Homosexuality" is not a behavior, at least no more so than "heterosexuality" is a behavior. It is an intrinsic identification regarding one's sexuality. It is misleading and incorrect to conflate sexual orientation and sexual activity by using the same word to describe both.
Furthermore, being "in the closet" is not a denial of one's homosexuality per se. It is merely the set of actions (or in some cases, lack of action), that lead others to presume that the given individual is heterosexual. Such actions range from simply doing nothing--the assumption is preexisting--to active denial, which is the case you described. There is an entire spectrum in between those extremes that you fail to take into account.
The question of whether homosexuality is a choice is in itself a loaded one, because it assumes that the answer is germane to how GLBTs (i.e. anyone who isn't heterosexual) ought to be treated by society. GLBTs don't present the question of whether heterosexuality is a choice. Neither do the heterosexuals who are so apparently fascinated with the analogous question as it applies to gays. To GLBTs, it is as if society asked, "Is being blue-eyed a choice" as a precursor to determining whether or not blue-eyed individuals should be held to a lower social and legal status than non-blue-eyed individuals.
Therefore, the debate over the nature and origins of homosexuality in humans is, in my view, a deliberate and calculated attempt by homophobes and bigots to manipulate the dialogue about the role of GLBTs in society away from the ways in which we share commonalities and the discrimination we face, and toward the biased, dogmatic thinking that underlies their prejudices about people who are not like themselves. And they have been incredibly successful at this sophistry and perversion of logic, as is witnessed by the asking of the "choice" question nearly every single time a discussion about gay people happens online. The ensuing useless debate is proof and product.
The registry is questionable enough in the first place; treating it lightly like this just makes it worse.
I'm being semi-facetious, but perhaps treating it lightly is precisely what is required to have it corrected. The more people realize it's being misused, the more they'll be motivated to do something about it. Presently, people's fear of and disgust for "sex offenders" exceeds their desire to precisely label who is one and who is not.
So let's find a way to put everyone on it. Let's put the girl on there because she dared to expose herself. Problem solved!;)
The inexorable march of technology will render any litigation irrelevant. The genie has been out of the bottle for years. There is no stopping encryption, P2P, self-organizing networks--and these are only the existing technologies. Future ones will only increase the speed and efficiency with which information is disseminated, shared, copied, and utilized. The battle was already won; all that remains is the question of how long the dinosaurs--whether they be companies or public "servants" (there's a misnomer if ever I heard one)--will continue to try to stem the tidal wave of knowledge, rather than embrace it.
You are part of this revolution. Do not accede to the will of those who seek to control you.
So, you're willing to pay more money to their brand because you feel their company has done right by you and/or society? One point for Ballmer.
Fail. You lack basic reading comprehension because that's not what I said. I said:
If Apple costs more (and I'm not necessarily convinced one way or another), I'm willing to pony up to support a company that has the balls to lead, because in the long run we're all the better for it.
That means two things. First, I am not assuming that Apple hardware costs more. Second, even if it did cost more, I would be willing to pay that relatively minor premium because I believe that they continue to raise the bar. It is impossible to deny--even the competitors speak openly about wanting to create the next "iPhone killer" or "iPod killer." Apple products are the standard by which the competitors measure themselves against. Without that standard being set, what do you think all those companies are going to do? They won't have the motivation to put out sleek, well-designed products. Like I said, we'd all still be stuck with crappy Windows Mobile.
"Baller" is not exactly someone anybody should be looking up to...sweaty, fat, throws chairs in temper tantrums, completely out of touch with emerging technology and basic principles of UI design, wastes time and energy talking trash that isn't even remotely true (recently said Windows Mobile is superior to iPhone--what a joke!). This guy is a complete idiot and he runs the most powerful, influential software company on the planet. Microsoft needs someone with real vision, not some failed marketing hack. Their developers, who are really incredibly brilliant, are their heart and soul, and it's an absolute tragedy that they're being led by this complete asshat. Under his leadership, you've got underhanded tactics like funding SCO's litigation and boneheaded product design in Windows Vista. I don't need to praise Apple to tell you how badly the world has been wronged by Microsoft, and in turn, its leader.
Again, pulling out some obscure device nobody bought as a shining example of innovation is absolutely ludicrous.
The point is not whether Apple was the first to come out with a particular feature (GPS or WiFi as you mentioned). The point is that Apple was the first to figure out how to make those features work well and therefore sell well. If those breakthrough devices were indeed so innovative, then they would have sold. People would have flocked to them regardless of price, because even the critics of Apple's hardware say how people buy it even though it's "overpriced." But did they? No. Why? Because almost universally, those innovations were poorly integrated, hard to use, not intuitive, or failed to demonstrate value in the eyes of the consumer.
That's what so many of you aren't getting here. I'm not talking about Apple as being the very first company to come out with a particular hardware detail. I'm talking about something much more important, which is the obsessive attention to hardware/software integration and the willingness to refine and improve and make sure everything works well together. I'm talking about the vision to lead the market toward better interfaces and better design, and therefore by definition this requires the widespread consumer adoption of such advances. Hauling out some obscure product nobody used does nothing to bolster your argument in this regard. Like it or not, you see the impact of their product design philosophy impacting all the other competitors, from Dell to Microsoft to Palm to RIM. Motorola did this with the StarTac and the RAZR in the area of mobile phone hardware (though their UI was tortured), but since then has lost their way.
Wrong. They've used that to *maintain* their dominant position, but they attained it by riding on IBM's name *and* recognizing that the PC market was in sore need of openness and competition, instead of every company building their own little island, as Apple et al had been doing until that point.
Ah, so now I see--you're absolutely right. Microsoft didn't steal, lie, and cheat their way into becoming a monopoly. They did it by "innovation,"--embrace, extend, extinguish.
None of your reasons is meaningful because you fail to consider the fact that Micrsoft used anticompetitive practices and developer lock-in to leverage an inferior product into the dominant consumer and enterprise OS. Businesses use Windows because their IT supports it, developers support it, OEMs support it, ad nauseam. It's not because it's a better product--it's because everyone and their mom has been stuck with it, like lousy VHS tapes. There are numerous examples in our economic history that show that the dominant technology is not always the "best."
What Microsoft has failed to recognize for the past 8 years is that Steve Jobs' Apple Inc. isn't interested in playing that game any more. He is way too busy pushing Apple in the direction of emerging consumer technology. He wants Apple to not lead market share per se, but to lead the direction of the market. That's what the iPod and iPhone did. That's what Jonny Ive's design has done. I find it hilarious that people talk up all these competitors (Nokia, RIM, LG, Samsung, and Palm for the iPhone, and Creative, Microsoft, for the iPod), and say how they now offer better features and hardware than the Apple products they wish to "kill." They forget that before Apple even broke those markets wide open, NONE of those companies made jack SHIT. Where was the Zune before the iPod? Where was the Storm or Pre before the iPhone? Where was any of all this sudden innovation in hardware design before Apple made their mark? The competitors play catch-up because they lack the vision to lead. They are too busy resting on their laurels and squeezing every last dime out of the consumer. If Apple costs more (and I'm not necessarily convinced one way or another), I'm willing to pony up to support a company that has the balls to lead, because in the long run we're all the better for it.
The whole tech industry and the consumers who use their products owe a huge debt of gratitude to Apple for lighting a massive bonfire under the collective asses of all the industry competitors. No other company in the past decade has done more to set a fierce competitive landscape in the realm of hardware, software, and product design. If it weren't for Apple we'd still be stuck with shitty Windows Mobile on 2" tiny non-touchscreen devices that looked uglier than a crack-addled stepmom on an alcohol binge.
The reason why creationism isn't science is precisely because it is not able to be verified nor refuted through the scientific method. Your question "Can we disprove creationism" is in itself assuming that creationism posits a testable hypothesis to begin with. You can't apply science to something that isn't scientific, because then by definition it would be scientific.
Wired didn't just "fuck up." That implies the reporting bias was unintentional. Brian X. Chen intentionally distorted the facts and misrepresented the statements of those he quoted. That is way, way beyond a fuckup.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's see... 2 year service contract / 1 year hardware design cycle = 2 hardware revisions per contract period ... fewer users upgrading, lower hardware revenues. Maybe, just maybe, I can wait another year until the next incremental change happens. Sorry, as much as I enjoy using Apple products, this is really poor business strategy. You're losing a whole subset of potential customers willing to drop hundreds more on a new handset every year, who are now instead going to wait every two years to get the lowest price. It doesn't take a genius to look at how Apple has milked the iPod cash cow by tweaking the product every six months or so. Tiny incremental changes, advertised as revolutionary, just to get the masses to throw away their "obsolete" device for something new. It's like disposable technology, only the per unit cost is significantly higher.
This was never really about the money. $200 every year is less than $20 a month. People pay more than three times that amount just for the phone service, and we all know AT&T is gouging us. It was never really about contracts. It is about being played. I don't believe in Apple's way of manipulating its product lifecycle to get users to buy every incremental change. They could've made the iPhone 3G S last year. The technology existed. But they held back and they're dragging it out. It reeks of consumer exploitation. And if we weren't bound to a single carrier, you can be sure that the competitive pressure would be a good thing for the consumer. Frankly, for a group of people who enjoy a product so much they're willing to pay several hundred, if not a thousand, dollars a year, an extra few hundred is not a dealbreaker. But feeling like you're being taken for a fool...well, that's the sort of thing that drives people to develop a love/hate relationship with a company like Apple.
I've never wanted the Palm Pre to succeed as bad as I do now. I want all the competitors to succeed. Nokia, RIM, Samsung, LG, even Microsoft. I want them to make a kick-ass device that will give Apple a run for its money. I'm not holding my breath, but I can hope. Come on Android, make something great already. It's only when the competition actually poses a threat to market dominance that real innovation starts to happen, and prices go down.
The thing is, the iPhone 3G isn't somehow magically rendered obsolete just because Apple made an improved version. It still does what it does. And with the new OS, it'll do even more. Such is the way technology changes. Yes, I think I'm sticking with my current phone. I waited one year to get 3G, I waited another year to get video/MMS/etc. I told myself I'd buy the new iPhone no matter what. And after the wait, and seeing the writing on the wall, I've come to the realization that I don't really care about having Apple's latest toy anymore. In fact, I really don't do much with my existing iPhone anyway. So why continue buying into this scheme? To paraphrase Mark Twain, if you're being regarded as an idiot, why play along and remove all doubt?
I've never understood this business strategy. I don't see any intrinsic reason why Microsoft should seek to enter every possible technology market and leverage its enormous financial power and resources to do so.
They know Zune is a failed business venture. As a product, the Zune is unable to compete with the iPod on any meaningful level. And Microsoft management knows this. Yet they persist, not out of some altruistic desire to encourage competition, but because the executives (read: Ballmer) have too much hubris to concede that Apple has done something remarkable. They have succeeded in revolutionizing the portable media device. And with the iPhone, Apple has created nothing less than an integrated portable computing/communications/multimedia solution that is as stylish as it is easy to use. Is it perfect? Hardly. Was it the first to use each of its component technologies? No. But it is indisputable that it broke new ground by combining all these features into a single, easy-to-use device. And the only ones who still refuse to admit this are those who are aligned with Ballmer's distorted view of reality.
I have a healthy appreciation for the competition--Google (Android), RIM (Blackberry), Palm (Pre), Nokia (N9x), and yes, even Microsoft (Zune/Windows Mobile). It's important that these guys are around to keep Apple on its toes. But let's not fool ourselves into believing that these are the good guys for fostering that competition. If they were truly good, they would have recognized the importance of innovating beyond what they see in Apple's offerings, rather than simply trying to make a comparable product. Where was their vision before Apple dominated the field? No, they were too busy being complacent. We saw tiny, incremental changes in the mobile device market for years until the iPhone blew everyone away. The same was true of the pre-iPod MP3 market. Apple lit a fire under their collective asses and now hardware manufacturers are going nuts trying to make the next "iPod/iPhone/iWhatever" killer.
The Zune will never be successful as long as it is deprived of a true vision. It isn't enough to mimic another device or its success. That's what Microsoft does not understand. They never have understood what makes a product work. The ubiquity of their bread-and-butter Windows has brought them enormous financial success and market share, but with that it has brought laziness and sloppy management. They can afford to push out half-assed products. Windows will still be there to keep the money coming in. They don't have to be hungry, visionary, or risk-taking, like Apple has had to be for decades. They've made some real blunders (G4 cube, 20th Anniversary Mac, the Lisa, Mac OS licensing, Centris/Quadra/Performa bloated product line,... I could go on but I think you get the point). But they have had enormous successes as well. Microsoft could make Zune amazing. Any company could, given that much money and talent. But that's not what they really want. They don't want to make something better than an iPhone or an iPod. They want to make something just good enough superficially, with as little attention to detail as possible, just so they can say they have some market penetration.
Microsoft has not wanted to make a better 'something' for DECADES. When a company stops caring about providing the best possible user experience, I stop caring about that company's products.
I'm a bit surprised that nobody has mentioned this rare but 100% fatal, autosomal dominant disorder. IIRC the first symptom is the sudden onset of insomnia, followed by hallucinations, dementia, catatonia, then death, typically by middle age. The progression is rapid, irreversible, and totally untreatable by modern science. Insomnia appears to be a symptom of the disease and not the direct cause of death; but it is often the loss of the ability to sleep that is most disturbing to the afflicted individuals, as it is in this early stage when their cognitive function remains largely intact.
It stands to reason that a biological process that is common to nearly all animals such as sleep is so essential that the lack of it would be a serious health issue, if not a direct contributor to death.
I think you might need to go a size up on that tinfoil hat of yours.... ;)
It's the rare post where one cannot decide whether to mod +insightful, or +funny.
There's something about him that almost invariably goes unappreciated unless you have the chance to interact with him. I'm not talking about listening to him deliver a speech or lecture; nor am I talking about simply exchanging greetings.
I had the rare opportunity to participate in a dialogue with Dr. Hawking. You know, as in one of us asks a question or makes a statement, and the other one replies. A conversation, if you will. But what was immediately, almost painfully, obvious from the outset is that this was no ordinary conversation. It took the better part of an hour to exchange the equivalent amount of information that would normally take at most a few minutes of most people's time. And yes, it seems like a *duh* kind of observation, but it is not until you actually experience it that you begin to develop the appreciation for his stature and how he has coped with his lot in life.
Unlike lectures and speeches, a real-time conversation cannot be composed in advance. One of us would ask a question, and there would be no response. We would have to wait through this incredibly pregnant pause while he composed his answer, one word, one letter at a time. Once he was finished, it would then burst forth from his synthesizer in this electronically modulated artificial voice. And yes, we did ask whether he had an interest in changing that voice, given the advances in speech synthesis algorithms, to provide a more "natural" expression. He didn't see any reason to.
The greatest lesson any of us got out of that conversation that evening with Dr. Hawking, is that every moment is valuable. Choose our words, our thoughts, our actions, with purpose and efficiency. And yet, learn to develop patience for that which you have no control over. I would find it maddening to be forced to communicate at 1/20th the speed of most everyone else, and yet have full, unfettered speed of thought. It is the realization that the vast majority of people on this planet take for granted the time which passes in each moment, each day, and do not fill it to its potential, that I am reminded of when I think about my encounter with Dr. Hawking.
Make each moment count. May he have a speedy and full recovery.
Maybe that's true for other people but I personally feel that my choice of hardware is driven by my particular needs in terms of functionality, usability, and lastly, aesthetics. I would like to think that I don't buy things just because other people have them. I mean, what kind of purpose does that serve? Status is not important to me--I don't wear the trendiest clothes, or drive the fanciest car. I'm extremely price-conscious when it comes to things that are unimportant to me. But I am willing to pay for quality when that quality counts. I've been burned too often by Windows and bargain-basement PC hardware.
So I've never owned an iPod, but when the iPhone came out I did buy one, because it was clear that it was a significant innovation that combined multiple functions into a single, cohesive, well-designed device. I didn't get it because it was "cool." The thing is, advertising and PR is ubiquitous. It's not fair to say that marketing drives the purchasing decisions of the consumer when it comes to Apple products, but the same does not equally apply to Microsoft, HP, Dell, Nokia, or whatever.
People like to attribute Apple's success to their marketing, their attention to aesthetics. And I don't doubt there's some contribution. I don't doubt for a moment that a lot of people buy their products because they see their friends with these sleek, shiny devices. But in my view, that's a bit upside-down. Nobody would buy the hardware if it didn't live up to its promises.
That's a good question. I don't know if it's a viable business model, to be honest. Investors seem to be fairly confident about it, though. Time will tell. Or an internal corporate leak?
I used the term "selling data" loosely. Google doesn't sell their data or the analytics directly. Rather, they sell it indirectly, through more efficient matching of the advertiser to the prospective buyer. The ability to do this well is predicated upon the necessity of understanding the advertising preferences of the consumer, and this in turn is accomplished by analyzing the information the user sends to Google through its services. If I search for "tentacle porn" on YouTube you can bet I'm going to see ads for anything from hentai anime to takoyaki restaurants.
I should have been more specific, rather than assumed that my meaning ought to be inferred from the context.
Google's strategy is not simply about creating or acquiring ubiquitous online services regardless of profitability. A lot of comments so far have missed the forest for the trees. You want to know why Google beats its competitors in advertising? It's not just brand presence or market domination. It's the way in which they cross-analyze data collected from ALL their services in order to increase the accuracy of their advertising.
I mean, hasn't anyone noticed this yet? Your GMail, Blogger, Calendar, Picasa, and YouTube accounts are all linked. Even the original search that Google started out with provides valuable analytics that are still trade secrets. Users of these services leave a data trail that provides Google with all kinds of information about the user's preferences. That information then gets analyzed and targeted ads are served that increase the likelihood that they'll be clicked. And that's how Google gets the business. Their biggest fear is not whether a product is losing money; it is that nobody is using it and therefore there is no data to mine. All these serivces are just carrots they dangle for the end-user. Their true customers are those who pay for the data they collect from us.
One service does not have to turn a direct profit in order to increase the value of the overall business model.
The main thrust of the pro-gay crusade these days is about gaining favored status ("protected class" listings, tax benefits for "civil unions" and "gay marriage") for gays. At very least, the second half of that qualifies as promotion.
You made the above statement. I challenged you to support it. You have not. Your attempt at misdirection is transparent. Answer the question with factual evidence, or retract your statement.
You certainly have a strange concept of "favored status." Name me one right--just ONE--that gay people have, or are seeking, that straight people do not enjoy. Name me one law on the books that says gay people are entitled to some benefit that straight people are legally prohibited from having.
You think that gay marriage is somehow more favorable to gays than straight marriage? That just demonstrates your bias and ignorance.
"Homosexuality" is not a behavior, at least no more so than "heterosexuality" is a behavior. It is an intrinsic identification regarding one's sexuality. It is misleading and incorrect to conflate sexual orientation and sexual activity by using the same word to describe both.
Furthermore, being "in the closet" is not a denial of one's homosexuality per se. It is merely the set of actions (or in some cases, lack of action), that lead others to presume that the given individual is heterosexual. Such actions range from simply doing nothing--the assumption is preexisting--to active denial, which is the case you described. There is an entire spectrum in between those extremes that you fail to take into account.
The question of whether homosexuality is a choice is in itself a loaded one, because it assumes that the answer is germane to how GLBTs (i.e. anyone who isn't heterosexual) ought to be treated by society. GLBTs don't present the question of whether heterosexuality is a choice. Neither do the heterosexuals who are so apparently fascinated with the analogous question as it applies to gays. To GLBTs, it is as if society asked, "Is being blue-eyed a choice" as a precursor to determining whether or not blue-eyed individuals should be held to a lower social and legal status than non-blue-eyed individuals.
Therefore, the debate over the nature and origins of homosexuality in humans is, in my view, a deliberate and calculated attempt by homophobes and bigots to manipulate the dialogue about the role of GLBTs in society away from the ways in which we share commonalities and the discrimination we face, and toward the biased, dogmatic thinking that underlies their prejudices about people who are not like themselves. And they have been incredibly successful at this sophistry and perversion of logic, as is witnessed by the asking of the "choice" question nearly every single time a discussion about gay people happens online. The ensuing useless debate is proof and product.
It's a special, copyrighted, variant spelling of soufflé. Apparently it also requires equally special baskets and eggs.
The registry is questionable enough in the first place; treating it lightly like this just makes it worse.
I'm being semi-facetious, but perhaps treating it lightly is precisely what is required to have it corrected. The more people realize it's being misused, the more they'll be motivated to do something about it. Presently, people's fear of and disgust for "sex offenders" exceeds their desire to precisely label who is one and who is not.
So let's find a way to put everyone on it. Let's put the girl on there because she dared to expose herself. Problem solved! ;)
The inexorable march of technology will render any litigation irrelevant. The genie has been out of the bottle for years. There is no stopping encryption, P2P, self-organizing networks--and these are only the existing technologies. Future ones will only increase the speed and efficiency with which information is disseminated, shared, copied, and utilized. The battle was already won; all that remains is the question of how long the dinosaurs--whether they be companies or public "servants" (there's a misnomer if ever I heard one)--will continue to try to stem the tidal wave of knowledge, rather than embrace it.
You are part of this revolution. Do not accede to the will of those who seek to control you.
So, you're willing to pay more money to their brand because you feel their company has done right by you and/or society? One point for Ballmer.
Fail. You lack basic reading comprehension because that's not what I said. I said:
If Apple costs more (and I'm not necessarily convinced one way or another), I'm willing to pony up to support a company that has the balls to lead, because in the long run we're all the better for it.
That means two things. First, I am not assuming that Apple hardware costs more. Second, even if it did cost more, I would be willing to pay that relatively minor premium because I believe that they continue to raise the bar. It is impossible to deny--even the competitors speak openly about wanting to create the next "iPhone killer" or "iPod killer." Apple products are the standard by which the competitors measure themselves against. Without that standard being set, what do you think all those companies are going to do? They won't have the motivation to put out sleek, well-designed products. Like I said, we'd all still be stuck with crappy Windows Mobile.
"Baller" is not exactly someone anybody should be looking up to...sweaty, fat, throws chairs in temper tantrums, completely out of touch with emerging technology and basic principles of UI design, wastes time and energy talking trash that isn't even remotely true (recently said Windows Mobile is superior to iPhone--what a joke!). This guy is a complete idiot and he runs the most powerful, influential software company on the planet. Microsoft needs someone with real vision, not some failed marketing hack. Their developers, who are really incredibly brilliant, are their heart and soul, and it's an absolute tragedy that they're being led by this complete asshat. Under his leadership, you've got underhanded tactics like funding SCO's litigation and boneheaded product design in Windows Vista. I don't need to praise Apple to tell you how badly the world has been wronged by Microsoft, and in turn, its leader.
Again, pulling out some obscure device nobody bought as a shining example of innovation is absolutely ludicrous.
The point is not whether Apple was the first to come out with a particular feature (GPS or WiFi as you mentioned). The point is that Apple was the first to figure out how to make those features work well and therefore sell well. If those breakthrough devices were indeed so innovative, then they would have sold. People would have flocked to them regardless of price, because even the critics of Apple's hardware say how people buy it even though it's "overpriced." But did they? No. Why? Because almost universally, those innovations were poorly integrated, hard to use, not intuitive, or failed to demonstrate value in the eyes of the consumer.
That's what so many of you aren't getting here. I'm not talking about Apple as being the very first company to come out with a particular hardware detail. I'm talking about something much more important, which is the obsessive attention to hardware/software integration and the willingness to refine and improve and make sure everything works well together. I'm talking about the vision to lead the market toward better interfaces and better design, and therefore by definition this requires the widespread consumer adoption of such advances. Hauling out some obscure product nobody used does nothing to bolster your argument in this regard. Like it or not, you see the impact of their product design philosophy impacting all the other competitors, from Dell to Microsoft to Palm to RIM. Motorola did this with the StarTac and the RAZR in the area of mobile phone hardware (though their UI was tortured), but since then has lost their way.
Wrong. They've used that to *maintain* their dominant position, but they attained it by riding on IBM's name *and* recognizing that the PC market was in sore need of openness and competition, instead of every company building their own little island, as Apple et al had been doing until that point.
Ah, so now I see--you're absolutely right. Microsoft didn't steal, lie, and cheat their way into becoming a monopoly. They did it by "innovation,"--embrace, extend, extinguish.
None of your reasons is meaningful because you fail to consider the fact that Micrsoft used anticompetitive practices and developer lock-in to leverage an inferior product into the dominant consumer and enterprise OS. Businesses use Windows because their IT supports it, developers support it, OEMs support it, ad nauseam. It's not because it's a better product--it's because everyone and their mom has been stuck with it, like lousy VHS tapes. There are numerous examples in our economic history that show that the dominant technology is not always the "best."
What Microsoft has failed to recognize for the past 8 years is that Steve Jobs' Apple Inc. isn't interested in playing that game any more. He is way too busy pushing Apple in the direction of emerging consumer technology. He wants Apple to not lead market share per se, but to lead the direction of the market. That's what the iPod and iPhone did. That's what Jonny Ive's design has done. I find it hilarious that people talk up all these competitors (Nokia, RIM, LG, Samsung, and Palm for the iPhone, and Creative, Microsoft, for the iPod), and say how they now offer better features and hardware than the Apple products they wish to "kill." They forget that before Apple even broke those markets wide open, NONE of those companies made jack SHIT. Where was the Zune before the iPod? Where was the Storm or Pre before the iPhone? Where was any of all this sudden innovation in hardware design before Apple made their mark? The competitors play catch-up because they lack the vision to lead. They are too busy resting on their laurels and squeezing every last dime out of the consumer. If Apple costs more (and I'm not necessarily convinced one way or another), I'm willing to pony up to support a company that has the balls to lead, because in the long run we're all the better for it.
The whole tech industry and the consumers who use their products owe a huge debt of gratitude to Apple for lighting a massive bonfire under the collective asses of all the industry competitors. No other company in the past decade has done more to set a fierce competitive landscape in the realm of hardware, software, and product design. If it weren't for Apple we'd still be stuck with shitty Windows Mobile on 2" tiny non-touchscreen devices that looked uglier than a crack-addled stepmom on an alcohol binge.
What has OS X been doing for years that Windows 7, which hasn't been released yet, can't, which makes it so superior?
I fixed your sentence.
Well, judging from the video of Baller's "monkey dance," he doesn't need cologne, he needs an industrial-strength antiperspirant.
If I could I would give you all my mod points. Well said, especially the last part (though I think you meant to use the word "dissonant").
Oh, and there was one part that made me chuckle...
...forcing their children to admin that...
You must work in IT.
The reason why creationism isn't science is precisely because it is not able to be verified nor refuted through the scientific method. Your question "Can we disprove creationism" is in itself assuming that creationism posits a testable hypothesis to begin with. You can't apply science to something that isn't scientific, because then by definition it would be scientific.
Wired didn't just "fuck up." That implies the reporting bias was unintentional. Brian X. Chen intentionally distorted the facts and misrepresented the statements of those he quoted. That is way, way beyond a fuckup.